Dutch Government Adopts Open Source Software Initiative 118
christian.einfeldt writes "The Dutch government has set a target date of April 2008 for its agencies to start preferentially using open standards-based software. Organizations in the government will still be able to use proprietary software and formats ... but will have to justify it. A Microsoft Netherlands spokesman claims that Microsoft's Office productivity suite will still be used widely in the Dutch government until April, and that Microsoft Office will comply with the new Dutch rules once Microsoft's so-called "Open Office XML" standard is approved as an international ISO standard in February."
I love it (Score:2, Insightful)
And I love Microsoft's comment as well. Now lets first see that they manage to make OOXML an open standard! But at least someone still beliefs in it. It's so heartwarming. And actually a bid sad.
Re:I love it (Score:5, Insightful)
Now if only the Dutch could export this way of thinking across the North Sea to us non-mainland Europeans, we'd all be happy......
Brazil too, if I recall correctly (Score:1)
Re:Brazil too, if I recall correctly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Assuming you mean the UK, you should perhaps have a read of the eGIF rules sometime. They're quite explicit - while proprietary software is not forbidden, open standards and formats are very strongly encouraged. Failing to comply with the rules can result in funding being pulled.
Now I don't know how vigorously the rules are enforced, but certainly the times that I've worked with v
IBM didn't sink overnight either (Score:2, Insightful)
at first there was a whisper of dissent along the hall in acedemia
and then new voices joined the complaint
and the pundits all screamed we are set upon by fools
and as it turned out the king actually did not have any clothes at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
FWIW, I've heard that they're worth a lot more now than they were in 1980. They just don't control as large a proportion of the computing industry. But the industry's gotten a lot bigger.
My information says that IBM is a larger and more profitable company than MS. They just aren't quite a centralized, so they don't have as many superstars. (I.e., MS has two, Gates and Balmer. IBM doesn't have any.)
OTOH, what IBM *did* do during that period was reinvent itself.
Re: (Score:1)
IBM _have not lost_ in any way at all here. They never lost. What are you smoking to think they did?
Re: (Score:2)
It took a decade and a half of consistent decline and a lot of kicking and screaming by IBM and it's fanboys of days long gone before the hold they had over the market was finally broken. Then there was a rash of 'mini' and PC based solutions, the enabler o
Re: (Score:1)
Yes [bbc.co.uk]: "Open source gets European boost"
Quote: "The European Commission has added its voice to the debate about the use of open source software. A report funded by the Commission concludes that the software could offer considerable savings to organisations with little effect on their business."
It is viral
CC.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK, on the other hand, seems to want to give Bill Gates their collective wallet: "Here, help yourself. Want a knighthood with that?"
Maybe it is some kind of Stockholm syndrome. Perverse loyalty to your abusive monopolist: "I know they keep over-charging me for insecure trashy software that would not stand up to real competition
Re:I love it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
smarmy corporate types (Score:2)
I've actually had smarmy corporate types giggle at me on the phone and say things like "can't afford to migrate the whole office to 07 yet, eh?
I'm glad I don't have to deal with such people, who don't know how to run a business.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
When my mother's (albeit computer-illiterate, or almost so) clients can't read something[1], if she doesn't re-send the data in an acceptable format, she loses business.
OTOH, in your case it would be considered rude to simply bounce the .xlsx and .docx files as unreadable.
I therefore suggest routing them all through a computer-illiterate employee with Office 97. If (s)he cannot open the file, something must be wrong, please re-send in a tried and tested format like Office 97, thank you so very much.
But r
Re: (Score:1)
Isn't sending files in an unknown/unreadable/not-yet-universally-accepted format impolite?
One would think so. It is either rudeness or incompetence, and I go back and forth by the day on which I think I would prefer. I wholeheartedly agree with you, though. It really should be a matter of simple manners and courtesy. That is part of the reason why I said we are standard on 2000 AND 2003.. the administrative staff is on 03 for maximum compatibility with incom
Re:I love it (Score:5, Insightful)
Me too. So why in the Hell does MS fight ODF tooth and nail at every turn? They just can't wrap their head around the concept of winning their customer based on the merit of their product. The user has choice? OMG, the sky is falling!
Re: (Score:1)
So why in the Hell does MS fight ODF tooth and nail at every turn?
A colleague of mine recently asked me "somebody recently sent me a .docx document, does that mean I should buy a copy of MSO 2007?"
Many people won't replace software until it is broken, or there is an anticipation that it will break if not replaced. If MS were to (properly) support ODF, there would be nothing to come after it to 'break' their software and force an unnecessary upgrade. People could still be encouraged to upgrade, and many would, but many will resist until it is absolutely necessary.
- RG>
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I love it - the name OOXML is a misnomer (Score:5, Informative)
The only saving grace would be for the BRM to reject this from becoming an ISO standard in February. Else Microsoft's efforts to confuse the market with their skewed terminology looks set to continue.
Re: (Score:2)
MSXML is an ActiveX control for dealing with XML stuff, such as AJAX. I suggest Microsoft Office XML (without the Open) instead.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually twitter, millions of developers who work on Windows with Microsoft (oh, I'm sorry - "M$") tools know exactly what MSXML is.
Since your self-appointed holy goal is to evangelize to them, I suggest you stick with OOXML, otherwise you'll just confuse them. That is of course if they actually give a rat's ass about what someone like you has to say.
This is a given... (Score:2)
Dude, that's what Microsoft DOES. It's been part of their core strategy for decades.
It gets worse... (Score:1)
Worse than that: the author (Toby Sterling) who wrote the original piece states: "Microsoft has raced to achieve "open source" certification....but has so far failed to receive endorsement from the International Standards Organization".
Methinks Mr Sterling was clearly out of his depth in this report: perhaps he should stick to writing about flower shows in future; they must have loads of those in the Netherlands.
Re: (Score:2)
Or did you want to show you slept through geography?
I love it too but I don't believe in it (Score:2)
I applaud this initiative, but after dealing
Amsterdam is moving 10000 desktops to Ooo (Score:1)
Erm? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Erm? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Erm? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry I missed off the humour tags here.
In all seriousness, this type of confusion is *exactly* what Microsoft intended when they wanted to call it this. Get people to inadvertently get it the wrong way round so that people think it's the same thing and so forth. Basically just another type of FUD.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft doesn't get much right these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Open Standards != Open Source (Score:5, Insightful)
Supporters of open source should tone down the rhetoric about it and fight for open standards. If open source is better, as they believe, it will win if the playing field is level. What levels the field is open standards. Same is true about the free/paid software issue.
We should not fall for the well engineered PR spin of conflating these two.
Re:Open Standards != Open Source (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
could you expand on this ?
like, does "releasing as open source" include complying with existing license of established project ?
which particular vendors and products are exposing the problem of using closed source components ?
the general direction seems to be in ver
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Security through obscurity does not work. You know it, I know it and most slashdotters and security professionals know it. But still some non engineers in the top management don't buy it. Many top politicians don't buy it. Selling closed/proprietary software as "more secure" works for them. Blocking open source as "insecure" works there. Now we are in a no-win si
Re: (Score:2)
Oracle is a big player who is gunning for a slice of MSFT in the server dbase markets. Quickbooks, Peachtree, many many accounting, corporate software (CRM, inventory manage
mmmm (Score:1)
This should prove an entertaining(and educational) event to watch unfold.
Re:mmmm (Score:5, Informative)
The Socialist Party wants the cost of a PC split in a software part and a hardware part. This concept of course is the way to go, but I don't see this happen soon.
Microsoft should not worry at all, since the users in the government use the plug-in at some departments already. I didn't hear anyone mentioning OpenOffice.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Is there a place where I can read (I read Dutch) the minutes or a summary of what was discussed?
Or if that is not available, do you know where I can find the text of the decision itself?
Cheers!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
After all, one of the factors contributing to Microsoft's dominance
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The good news is that porting VBA to StarBasic is feasible (I just ported a handful of functions that I use in teaching). The available documentation is not good, but the help available on the OpenOffice forums is first-rat
Open Standards please (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't really care wheter or not our government uses open source or proprietary software, whatever works best for the task at hand. I do however care a lot about them using open standards. It sure would be nice if we can still figure out how to open a certain document in 50 years time, without depending on a single software vendor to help us out.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that even property programs like from microsoft can be open, if the standard is fully published.
Open standards != open source (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
And there's nothing stopping Microsoft from using an open standard ... except the guy wielding the chair.
Why is it hard to see...? (Score:1, Insightful)
I believe that ODF allows for a new point of adjustment to the current way things are perceived in the Office suite environment.
I have a hard time understanding why people don't see the benefit of standardizing ODF as the standard, it allows for so much progress. The fact that it is not controlled by
Re: (Score:2)
There's a typo in the summary. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
trademark infringement (Score:1, Insightful)
Interview with the general manager of Microsoft NL (Score:4, Interesting)
In the same interview, Theo Rinsema, general manager of MS Netherlands also said that MS doesn't want to compete on Office formats.
He also mentioned that the
Bad Article (Score:2, Informative)
I talked about this with a friend yesterday, and we noticed that this was a very badly written article that gets basically everything wrong. But that's tech journalism for ya.
Here are some relevant links from his blog [wordpress.com]:
Interesting tag (Score:2, Informative)
OOXML will not be allowed for now (Score:1)
Rgds,
Arjen
OOXML != open source, not matter ISO decides (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if MSOOXML gets the ISO stamp, it doesn't make it "open", merely
a standard. On the "open" front it's pretty much pretense all the way.
Not that ISO even pretends to usually care if a standard is open or not, even if
in this case even they seem to be party to the shell game.
the costs of the project.
- new Office, not really ooxml: $$$
- new OpenOffice.org: Free
Moreover, all authorities must be able to receive office documents in two open
document standards - namely ODF and OOXML. This allows citizens to communicate
with government using open standards.
- rx ODF with OpenOffice.org: True
- rx OOXML with any version of MSOFFice: false
The openness of a standard implies that:
* the standard must be fully documented and publicly available;
- ODF: True
- OOXML: False, proposed "standard" includes by reference
undocumented components
* the standard must be freely implementable without economic, political or legal
constraints on its implementation and use, now or in the future;
- ODF: True
- OOXML: False Legal Constraints
* the standard should be managed and maintained in an open forum via an open
process (standardisation organisation).
- ODF: True
- OOXML: False see recent articles on OOXML Bait and Switch
Forget ISO, define "open" instead (Score:3, Insightful)
This sounds optimistic to me, but it could easily be true. Actually, it would be very good news if it became n ISO standard ... if Microsoft gets the standard by improving and clarifying it, and by explicitly dropping all patent restrictions on its features. But it's entirely possible that they won't do that but will get an ISO standard anyway, in which case we'll have an "open" standard that can't be implemented properly by any third parties, and can't be implemented legally in the United States without licensing patents on the standard from Microsoft.
This is why I think it's important for governments to clearly define what they mean by "open." The definition should have nothing to do with any standards body like ISO or Ecma. As we've all seen, ISO votes can be rigged, so "open" should mean that a standard is well-documented and contains no patent, copyright or trademark restrictions that would prevent a third party from implementing it without working with the developer of the standard. It should also require that the original developer of the standard not be the sole authority in charge of developing it further, and keeps their own products compliant with it. (How many people have imagined Microsoft "deviating" from their own OOXML standard in undocumented ways when they release the next version of Office?)
strategy and tactics (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about it, think hard. A single model ? That is like the mafia boss telling the judge "it is unfair to single out the model of law-abiding citizenry as only allowable one".
Nobody hinders Microsoft to compete in the market of open standards; just like Nokia and Ericsson compete in the world of the open standards of telecommunication. Sure, they'd prefer if each had a monopoly, and nobody else could even manufacture handsets.
The Dutch policy directs government organizations at the national level to be ready to use the Open Document Format to save documents by April
No reason for Microsoft to whine. ODF is some ISO standard, and they are more than welcome to place their ISO/IEC 26300-compliant product in the market. Nobody hinders Microsoft to make the big buck at supporting their software.
Now Microsoft need to price their product... (Score:1)
--
I've been using OpenOffice in a corporate, MS only, environment for 3 years now... go on and try to tell me that it is impossible.
Accuracy in naming (Score:1)
Standards = Libraries (Score:2)
Get the facts ;) (Score:5, Insightful)
I attended the conference of ososs.nl (http://www.ososs.nl/ [ososs.nl], mainly Dutch), which was held the day after the documents passed Dutch parlement. Ososs was set up by the Dutch government and they are co-writes of the document of the Netherlands Economic Affairs Ministry
To get the facts
1) Any govenmental agency must by default use solutions and products that use open standards. Only with a very good reason one can choose a closed standards product. If currently a closed standards solution is used, replacing it should be done with an open standards version ("ist" to "soll" situation).
2) Open-Source products must be considered in any aquisition of new products. It must be weighted on equal terms with closed-source products.
3) All things being equal, open-source is the preferred choice.
4) Interoperability, govenmental transparancy and innovation are at least as important as the price of the solution.
4) There is a deadline of April 2008 to implement the use of Open Document Format for all external communications within all branches of the govenment
5) All semi-govenmental agencies have until 2011 to implement ODF
6) The parlement explicitly stated that education must be included in this initiative. Not only for their internal ICT, but as an integral part of education of pupils and students in ICT.
7) The parlement will keep watching progress being made.
I personally feel that the most intresting point is not just the points above, but the fact that the govenment is using a top-down approach, which has full support of both the Home office as well as the Economic Affairs Ministry. I feel this is a landslide victory for open standards and open source in the Netherlands.
Futhermore, I'd like to add that all parties in the parlement, left to right, were in favour of this act; this has not happened in a very long time...
Free as in... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
And precisely what is your home country doing that's so superior, Mr Wanker?
Re: (Score:2)
One step at the time - and if Microsoft can document fully their OOXML format, it's still a win for OpenOffice and the rest of the office suites out there - compatibility with Microsoft Office will be easier to obtain.
Re:Pansies (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm unconvinced - from what I've seen of the OOXML "spec", I am not sure maintaining compatibility by following it would be any easier than the current reverse engineering done on the existing formats. So the only change I think we're going to see if OOXML gets approved as a standard is that the third party software writers will _look_ worse since they will lose the "well it isn't documented so we're doing the best we can" excuse.
Re:Maybe they didn't want to be "Open Failures" (Score:4, Interesting)
Note that the delay began with debates over patent issues, and companies fighting for contracts (the pilot was based on SuSE but "the city finally chose Softcon and Gonicus to install open source software provided through the Debian GNU/Linux project.") There was certainly resistance to change, but the delays have been more political than technical in nature.
Re: (Score:1)
In my experience, the Dutch are very pragmatic and quick to learn from other's mistakes. This is a move towards open standards in a phased approach, understanding that a big bang switch-over would fail. It rarely works for significant, mandated technology change. I recall in the US the mandate for all defense software to be written in Ada. That neveer worked. A slower, steady switchover is better. At least the Dutch
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)